Children and Adoption Bill [HL]

I shall speak to my amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 114, 117, 118 and 119. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley for her support for Amendment No. 114. It is a probing amendment to oblige the Secretary of State to conduct research into contact orders, looking, for example, at their effect on children, and the principles governing the making of them. The purpose of this is that we are now very occupied with outcomes for children. In the Children Act 2004, several outcomes—enjoying and achieving, staying healthy, staying safe—were enshrined in law and it is sensible for us to look further down the line, three or four years perhaps, to see whether the orders are doing what we wish them to do and how children are benefiting from them. That information could be fed back to judges who could adjust their thinking in response to it. A question that has been raised on many occasions during the scrutiny of the Bill is the issue of funding. Are the proposals in the Bill adequately funded? Will the monitoring really be possible and effective? Independent research to look at whether resources are being made available to do the job required would be very useful and I would appreciate some indication from the Minister about what might be put in place. Amendment No. 117 is also probing. It refers to a care plan in contact order proceedings, which is a drafting error on my part; I meant to refer to a contact plan. The purpose of this amendment is to front-load proceedings as far as possible so that at the time of divorce consideration is given by all parties to plans for the residence of, and contact with, the children, which will save trouble further down the path. I understand that, currently, before a divorce can be granted a contact plan is decided on, but that it is not very robust. I would appreciate it if the Minister would look at whether that measure might be reinforced and, in particular, whether there might be compulsion on both parents to meet to discuss this area, as well as encouragement for children to participate in forming as clear a plan about residence and contact as possible at the point of divorce. Amendment No. 118 is also probing. Its purpose is to seek information from the Government about how they intend to avoid a situation where courts get caught up in a prolonged series of hearings that do nobody any good. I recognise that as children grow it may well be that arrangements need to be changed to allow for that, but I would be saddened if the greater powers that the Bill grants courts over families inadvertently draw them into longer court proceedings. One is always hearing that the courts are a very blunt instrument in these matters. The Bill sharpens up that instrument somewhat, but we need to be careful that it does not inadvertently lead to courts being drawn more into these proceedings than we would wish. That amendment relates to my final amendment, Amendment No. 119, which again is probing. It states:"““Rules of court shall specify that no more than two judges or six magistrates may preside over a series of court proceedings relating to . . . a contact order, or . . . an order varying or discharging that contact order””." The purpose of that amendment is twofold. First, it is to encourage continuity in cases dealing with families of this kind. I was advised by a judge that it is extremely important, if possible, to have one judge overseeing a series of hearings if one wants the best judgment possible. It is also important to have continuity where magistrates are involved. It is more difficult in that case, but it is important. The second purpose is to develop the degree of specialisation. Thinking first of magistrates, they are asked to take very sensitive, difficult decisions about a family’s future but they are currently not permitted to specialise solely in family law; they are obliged to undertake other cases. Again, it has been emphasised to me by a judge that it would be useful if magistrates could specialise in family cases. Another very important point stressed to me by a judge is the limit on the numbers of judges specialising in family proceedings. This is a most important point. On the last occasion on which we considered these matters in your Lordships’ House, it became clear that there were concerns about the degree of specialism in the judiciary on these matters. I understand that, currently, the main obstruction is that to become a judge, a person practising law must have experience of criminal law. We live in a time when professionals in all fields are becoming increasingly specialist, and it should be possible for a lawyer who practises in family law to become a judge supervising family law cases. That is needed to get the number of judges necessary to provide the continuity and high degree of expertise that would enable a much better response to matters such as reasonable or meaningful contact. All those important questions would be better addressed if the judiciary were improved in that way. Can the Minister give us some detail about what plans there are for reform of the courts in this area? I look forward to hearing his response.